Ganesh Pandey. Vs. State of Bihar. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....officer closed the enquiry and submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges. the industrial tribunal found and held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice. it appears that from the bank this letter was not handed over to the enquiry officer. admittedly, the respondent had not appeared for the enquiry on two earlier dates. in those circumstances and having regard to the fact that the witness intended to be examined by the management in support of the charge had come in connection with that enquiry from delhi to dehradun for the third time, the enquiry officer decided to proceed with the enquiry and examine him ex parte. pw.1 happened to be the branch manager where the respondent was posted at the material time and where the misappropriation was committed by him......judge has rejected the petition filed under section 227 of the code of criminal procedure on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge.2. short fact of the case is that in the night on 4.12.1996 about 15 to 20 accused persons entered into the house of the informant and thereafter, killed the husband of the informant. at the time of occurrence, the informant wanted to save her husband however even she also received fire arm injury and thereafter, a bomb was also thrown on her causing serious injury on her. on the basis of fardbeyan of hadisan khatoon, an f.i.r. vide vaishali p.s. case no.170 of 1996 was registered against about eight named accused persons. however, name of petitioner was not mentioned in the f.i.r. after investigation, in the month of july, 1997, charge sheet was submitted against ten accused persons including the petitioner. subsequently, order of cognizance was passed and while the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under section 227 of the code of criminal procedure. it was pleaded before the trial court that only on suspicion, he was made accused and as such he was required to be.....

Judgment:

1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.5.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge V, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.220 of 1998 arising out of Vaishali P.S. Case No.170 of 1996. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge.

2. Short fact of the case is that in the night on 4.12.1996 about 15 to 20 accused persons entered into the house of the informant and thereafter, killed the husband of the informant. At the time of occurrence, the informant wanted to save her husband however even she also received fire arm injury and thereafter, a bomb was also thrown on her causing serious injury on her. On the basis of fardbeyan of Hadisan Khatoon, an F.I.R. vide Vaishali P.S. Case No.170 of 1996 was registered against about eight named accused persons. However, name of petitioner was not mentioned in the F.I.R. After investigation, in the month of July, 1997, charge sheet was submitted against ten accused persons including the petitioner. Subsequently, order of cognizance was passed and while the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was pleaded before the trial court that only on suspicion, he was made accused and as such he was required to be discharged. However, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, by its order dated 4.5.2000, rejected the same.

3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 18.9.2001. This Court also granted an order of stay.

4. Shri Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner had committed any offence. It was submitted that petitioner was clerk (karpartaj) and in that capacity, as per the instruction of the deceased, he had even obtained some certified copy of the order sheet and thereafter, he had gone to the house of the deceased prior to the date of occurrence in the night. It was further submitted that in the case diary, save and except suspicion against the petitioner, there were nothing on record to show involvement of the petitioner in the crime. It was also argued that even while opposing the prayer of the discharge petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, had admitted that save and except suspicion, there were nothing against the petitioner and on aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of rejection of discharge petition.

5. Shri Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2006(4) PLJR 416 (Sarwan Kumar v. State of Bihar).

6. Shri Surendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was pointed out that in the case diary, the paragraphs, which has been referred in the impugned order, shows that there were strong suspicion against the petitioner regarding the commission of the offence and as such according to the learned counsel for the State, on the basis of strong suspicion, one can be put on trial and that would be sufficient for the purpose of framing of the charges. Accordingly, he has prayed to reject the petition.

7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and State, I have also examined the materials available on record particularly the impugned order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that there were strong suspicion against the petitioner. So far as framing of the charge is concerned, the court is of the view that it is not in dispute that even on the basis of strong suspicion, a charge can be framed. This point has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 1996(3) Cr. Law Journals 2448 (State of Maharashtra Vrs. Somnath Thapa).

8. It was submitted that since the petitioner was clerk (karpartaj), in relation to some legal work, he was in touch of the deceased and on that ground alone, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. So far as the case of Sarwan Kumar (Supra) is concerned, I am of the view that the said case has got no direct bearing with the present case. The said case was in relation to defalcation and it was decided on different footing.

9. In that view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any defect in the order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

10. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 18.9.2001 stands automatically vacated.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.